Complainant alleges:

PARTIES

1. Annemarie Del Mugnaio (Complainant) brings this Accusation solely in her official capacity’as the Executive Officer Of the Veterinary Medical Board, Department of Consumer Affairs.

ACCUSATION

2. On or about May 25, 2000, the Veterinary Medical Board issued Veterinary Medicine License Number VET 13995 to Melissa Ann Tyson (Respondent Tyson). The veterinary license was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought herein and will expire on

October 31, 2018, unless renewed.

3. On or about November 24, 2003, the Veterinary Medical Board issued Premises Permit Number HSP 5890 to Crown City Veterinary Medical Group, Inc., with Melissa Ann Tyson as the managing licensee (Respondent Premises). The Premises Permit was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought herein and will expire on May 31, 2018, unless renewed.

JURISDICTION

4. This Accusation is brought before the Veterinary Medical Board (Board), Department of Consumer Affairs, under the authority of the following laws. All section references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise indicated.

5. Section 118, subdivision (b) of the Code provides that the suspension, expiration, surrender or cancellation of a license shall not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to proceed with a disciplinary action during the period within. which the license may be renewed, restored, reissued or reinstated. Pursuant to section 4843.5 of the Code, an expired certificate of registration may be renewed at any time within five years after its expiration.

6. Section 4875 of the Code provides, in pertinent part, that the Board may revoke or suspend the license of any person to practice veterinary medicine, or any branch thereof, in this state for any causes provided in the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, §4800, et seq.). In addition, the Board has the authority to assess a fine not in excess of $5,000 against a licensee for any of the causes specified in section 4883 of that code. Such fine may be assessed in lieu of, or in addition to, a suspension or revocation.

7. Section 4853.6 of the Code provides, in pertinent part, that the Board. shall withhold, suspend or revoke the registration of veterinary premises when the license of the licensee manager to practice veterinary medicine is revoked or suspended.

8. Section 4883 of the Code states:

. . . The board may deny, revoke, or suspend a license or assess a fine as provided in

Section 4875 for any of the following…

(c) Violation or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, any of the provisions

of this chapter.

(d) Fraud or dishonesty in applying, treating, or reporting on tuberculin or other biological tests,

…

(g) Unprofessional conduct, that includes, but is not limited, to the following: … (i) Fraud, deception, negligence, or incompetence in the practice of veterinary medicine. (j) Aiding or abetting in any acts that are in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter.

9. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.50 states:

An inspection warrant is an order, in writing, in the name of the people, signed by a judge of a court of record, directed to a state or local official, commanding him to conduct any inspection required or authorized by state or local law or regulation relating to building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor, or zoning.

10. California Food and Agricultural Code section 9562 states:

(a) Subject to the rights and procedures established pursuant to Chapter 4.5 (commencing 23 with Section 11400) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, and in accordance with regulations adopted pursuant to this code, the State Veterinarian shall impose a quarantine if he or she believes, upon any basis reasonably supportable by standard epidemiological practice or credible scientific research, that a population of domestic animals or food product from animals has contracted, or may carry, an illness, infection, pathogen, contagion, toxin, or condition that,

without intervention, could transmit an illness that could kill or seriously damage other animals or

humans, including, in addition to the original condition, those clinically plausible secondary illnesses, infections, pathogens, contagions, toxins, or conditions arising from the effects of the original. (b) (1) Because the authority conferred by this section is designed to protect the health and safety of the citizens of this state, the authority shall be interpreted broadly to give full effect to the “purpose of protecting the public health and safety and shall be construed to include the imposition of quarantines in the circumstances of natural disaster, Whether occurring or imminent, or declared emergencies. (2) In furtherance of the objectives of the quarantine, the State Veterinarian may impose restrictions not only on the affected animals themselves. and the uses to which those animals may be put, but on products produced from, by, or with those animals in order to minimize the risk or spread of food-borne illness. (3) The State Veterinarian’s quarantine powers set forth in this section expressly include the power to order movement, segregation, isolation, or destruction of animals or food products, as Well as the power to hold animals or food products in place,

11. California Food and Agricultural Code section 9563 states: It is unlawful for any person to move or allow to be moved any of the animals, food product from animals, vehicles, farm equipment, farm products, or other materials that are subject to restrictions established pursuant to Section 9562 or 9569 unless that person has first obtained authorization from the State Veterinarian.

12. California Food and Agricultural Code section 9564 states: If it is necessary to restrict the movements of animals pursuant to Section 9562, the State Veterinarian may fix and proclaim the boundaries of a quarantine area in lieu of separate, individual orders issued to each owner pursuant to Section 9562. While the boundaries are in force, it is unlawful for any person to move or allow to be moved any such animals from or within the boundaries of the Quarantine area, unless that person is authorized to do so by the State Veterinarian.

13. California Food and Agricultural Code section 9691 states:

It is unlawful for any person to remove or cause to be removed any animal from any

district, area, or premises which is quarantined pursuant to this chapter, except upon the

conditions Which are prescribed in this chapter.

14. California Food and Agricultural Code section 9695 states: It is unlawful for any person to hide,

secrete, or fail to disclose any animal or property that is suffering from, or that has been

exposed or potentially exposed to any disease subject to a current quarantine order or to fail

to disclose the whereabouts of that animal or property.

COST RECOVERY

15. Section 125.3 of the Code provides, in pertinent part, that the Board may request the administrative law judge to direct a licentiate found to have committed a violation or violations of the licensing act to pay a sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case, with failure of the licentiate to comply subjecting the license to not being renewed or reinstated. If a case settles, recovery of investigation and enforcement costs may be included in a stipulated settlement.

FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Unprofessional Conduct)

16. Respondents Tyson and Premises are subject to disciplinary action under section 4883, subdivision (g) of the Code, in conjunction with California Food and Agriculture Code sections 9562, 9563, 9564 and 9691, in that Respondent Tyson, displayed unprofessional conduct by Violating a mandatory quarantine on November 22, 2016, when she removed her horse from a state-mandated quarantine premise after it had exhibited clinical signs of a contagious disease. Respondent Tyson further engaged in unprofessional conduct when she failed to comply with enhanced biosecurity measures. The circumstances are as follows:

17. Commencing on or about November 3, 2016, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) issued equine quarantines at the Los Angeles Equestrian Center (LAEC) for

horses stabled in Barn A due to an outbreak of Equine Herpes Virus type 1 (EHV-l) pursuant to it’s authority under Food and Agriculture Code section 9562. CDFA also ordered enhanced biosecurity measures for the horses including mandatory twice daily temperature monitoring of all animals in the quarantined area, security checkpoints, quarantine signage, caution tape and barricades, bleach foot baths, and visitors must park away from the property.

18. On November 8, 2016, the equine quarantines were expanded to include horses stabled at LAEC Barns B and C.

19. At all times relevant, Respondent Tyson was the owner and/or agent of a horse stabled in Barn C at LAEC, known as “Emmy.”

20. On or about November 22, 2016, Respondent Tyson was notified by a CDFA representative that Emmy had contracted a fever and needed to remain on the premises in accordance with the quarantine procedures while they were awaiting EHV-l test results.

21. Instead, at approximately 5:00 pm. on November 22, 2016, after having been notified of Emmy’s fever and while test results were still pending, Respondent Tyson came to LEAC with a horse trailer and removed Emmy from the CDFA mandated quarantine without prior authorization.

22. Respondent Tyson’s removal of Emmy from the quarantined area constituted unprofessional conduct in that it violated the quarantine and allowed for the potential spread of the infectious agent/disease to healthy horses at LEAC and placed healthy animals at risk of contracting a dangerous and highly contagious disease outside the perimeter of the quarantine area.

23. Respondent Tyson further exhibited unprofessional conduct when she failed to comply with enhanced biosecurity measures put in place during the quarantine that were intended to prevent the introduction and spread of EHV-l infectious diseases.

SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

24. Respondents are subject to disciplinary action under section 4883, subdivisions (d), (g) and (i) of the Code in that on November 22, 2016, Respondent Tyson misrepresented that Emmy did not have a fever and was not displaying signs of illness and removed Emmy from Barn C at LAEC where the horse had been subject to a CDFA quarantine.

THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Unprofessional Conduct-Failure to Disclose Location of infected animal)

25. Respondents are subject to disciplinary action under section 4883, subdivisions (g) and (j) of the Code in conjunction with Food and Agriculture Code section 9695 where Respondent Tyson failed to disclose the location of Emmy, an infected horse after the horse was unlawfully removed from the LAEC mandatory quarantine on November 22, 2016. When requested by the CDFA to provide Emmy’s location, Respondent Tyson failed and refused. Moreover, even after CDFA obtained a court-ordered Inspection Warrant under Code of Civil. i Procedure section 1822.50, Respondent Tyson refused to allow the inspectors to perform a physical inspection of the horses present on her property on December 30, 2016, to determine whether they were infected. Respondent Tyson’s actions constituted unprofessional conduct in that she caused more than a 30-day delay in the containment of the spread of the EHV-l virus and the potential exposure of the virus to other horses.

FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Deception)

26. Respondents are subject to disciplinary action under section 4883, subdivisions (c), (i) and (j) of the Code in that Respondent Tyson engaged in deception with the CDFA relating to the failure to disclose the true circumstances relating to date and time of the euthanasia of the horse, Emmy, after Respondent Tyson unlawfully removed Emmy from the mandatory quarantine.

The circumstances are as follows.

27. Respondent Tyson made false statements to CDFA when she stated her staff met with A.P.,

a representative of C.S., Emmy’s prior owner, to return ownership of Emmy back to C.S.

However, A.P. did not represent CS. and CS. did not authorize the transfer of ownership from Respondent Tyson back to himself.

28. Respondent Tyson made false statements to CDFA when she stated that she received a text message from her veterinary technician, Herbert Ramirez, at approximately 2:15 am. on November 23, 2016, stating that A.P., as representative of CS, requested the euthanasia of Emmy. However, A.P. was not a representative of CS. and CS. never requested euthanasia.

29. Respondent Tyson made false statements to CDFA when she stated that the pick-up, disposal, and rendering of Emmy’s body occurred on November 23, 2016. However, this information was false.

WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Veterinary Medical Board issue a decision: 1.Revoking or suspending Veterinary Medical License Number VET 13995, issued to Melissa Ann Tyson; 2. Revoking or suspending Premises Permit Number HSP 5890, issued to, Crown City Veterinary Medical Group, Inc. with Melissa Ann Tyson as the managing licensee; 3. Ordering Melissa Ann Tyson and Crown City Veterinary Medical Group, Inc. jointly and severally to pay the Veterinary Medical Board the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of this case, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 125.3; 4. Assessing a fine against Melissa Ann Tyson, not in excess of $5,000 for any of the causes specified in Business and Professions Code section 4883; and 5. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper.

Related Horse News

A California veterinarian-horse owner is in trouble after reportedly violating the EHV-1 quarantine at the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. The woman trailered the sick horse offsite. The California Department of Food and Agri...Read More